Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you've made a lot of good points in this thread but is it really necessary to explain the LARGE differences between Iraq and Ireland??

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Of course not my friend.

The differences are understood by myself ( I am from Northern Ireland )and all who read this forum.

But the key word of that sentance was the word 'your'.

Last year the world was becoming united in the war to stop terrorism. That is being tossed away. Rather sad.

That was my point.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I see, so because those in inforce the international laws fail to do so, we here in America must pay the price. I am afraid that will not do when you try and consult a greiving family after many of their relatives were killed by a terrorist attack that leveled a city or worse, killed a million via a biological weapon. Ya, international law that protects the criminal, and limits the victims right to respond or prevent such an attack is not worth inforcing.

The UN is a joke. It has always been a joke. You should see what countries a scheduled to lead what programs at the UN this year and next. That will surprise you. Libia for example. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The UN members feel that it is OK to leave a man who would develope and sell weapons of mass destruction in a position to do so out of fear that the OIL prices will go to high. That is just sick and wrong. They are afraid to act because they think he is a good guy, no they are afraid to act because they know he is not.

They fear that he already has the means to destroy the oil fields if threatened. The US is fearful of this as well, but has no choice. The time to remove him has come. BEFORE he sells his biological weapons or technology to a terrorist group.

The world is largely for peace, I am for peace, but I am not willing to allow that desire for peace to prevent me from being informed as to why we must remove a dangerous man like Saddam from power.

People who fear the US should. They absolutely should. If they are training, harbering, or planning a terrorist attack against us, we will no longer, or at least until a democrat is elected, turn the other cheek.

This is not a war against the IRAQ people, but a war against thier insaine leadership. A leadership that has promised to kill its own people rather than allowing them to live without it.

And the UN would stand by. Hey wait, that is what the UN does well doesn't it, just stand by.

If I was Ted Turner, I would tell the UN to take a hike on that Billion he promised them. They are not worth the investment.

[ March 19, 2003, 06:19: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok I will attempt to explain.

You are correct, that 9-11 was masterminded by a bunch of sick fanatical religious fools who believed that their way was the only way because they enjoy killing in the name of God.

The connection to 9-11 and Saddam is that he could sell some of biological technology, or worse give it and biological weapons to the above mentioned sick fanatics and then they could really do some damage.

The situation is, he has offered it to them already. He has given a terrorist group biological weapons to be used in a suicide bombing in Israel. The Israeli’s stopped this from happening thank god. They also knew what he was planning to do with his nuclear research and blew up his nuclear plant as a preemptive strike.

The facts are:
1. Saddam want weapons of Mass destruction
2. Saddam is actively researching these weapons.
3. Saddam has already produced biological and chemical weapons.
4. Saddam has already used said deadly weapons upon his own people and the people of IRAN.
5. Saddam has given some away to a terrorist group.
6. Saddam has offered to give a lot a way to any terrorist group.
7. Saddam believes he is Salideen (sp) and it is his duty to free the Arabic people. Free them by any means possible. (He is insane)
8. Saddam is a mass murderer and enjoys using weapons of mass destruction against his own people and his enemies.
9. Saddam has threatened to blow up Iraq oil fields in order to remain in power.
10. Saddam has blown up oil fields and killed millions with chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Baron Munchausen

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will assume that you did not intentionally intend to flame me. That your comments were typed in the heat of debate and hold no ill intentions.

And thanks for the spelling tips on Al Qaeda.

[ March 19, 2003, 06:38: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Just words, guys. The real reason for this war is oil, nothing else. There are dozens of dictators around. USA, like most other countries, is happy to give generous fundings to most of them if they allow free reign of american companies. No talk about murderers and moral concerns here.

This doesn't make the attacks on saddam less reasonable, but it leaves a bitter aftertaste, especially with USA behaving like the biggest bully on the block violating every international law that exists.

People always have two reasons for what they do: one that sounds good, and the real one.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

If only we lived in such a simple fantasy world where oil was the only factor.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bold statement! Links please.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good question, who will dare to defy the Empire? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
All those countries opposing the US are nothing but a bunch of pussies. A lot of talk and no action. I guess nobody wanna die defending their ideals.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
This is becoming a show of how low the west have fallen. And to think that once we were warriors, fighting for whatever we thought to be right, doesn't mattter how wrong that was, but we were warriors.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

A very heated discussion. I would like to tell you what I think about this situation.

1. American doctrine of world domination, the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) is active now. Members and chief designers of the PNAC are Perle, Bolten, Cheyney, Rumsfeld etc. (a "who is who" of the current american government) But this is not a covert operation of some fanatics. Everybody can find the outlined 90page documentation of this program at the internet. Try this link http://www.newamericancentury.org/

2. According to this project which was born 1993 and forced up in the year 2000, america should impose its way of life and kind of freedom and prosperty to the whole world. The enemy countries Irak Iran and S-Korea (the axis of evil) are firstly named in this PNAC document in the year 2000. (2 years before 9/11)
The goal of this policy is to play the leading role in the world in every way (political, economical and military) after the cold war.

3. It seems that the terror attack is a good chance for the PNAC group to publicly justify their american hegemonic goals and philosphy. But I am sure they would have done it anyway (9/11 or not)

4. The first "victim" of this policy is Irak. The second will be next country of the axis of evil. The only chance that this PNAC idea is probably not realized is that the americans vote for another president the next time.

5. Many political leaders in this world know the american goal to lead the world in the 21st century and they dont like it of course. (French, Russia, Germany, China etc.) Thats why they are against it. Nothing else. They are NOT moralic, they just have another politicial doctrine.

6. Regarding Saddam I am sure that its correct from American military to remove this tyrant from his throne. The American government dont have "idealistic" goals (just read the PNAC) and they are now on a very dangerous path but even a fully american controlled Irak is much better than Saddam.

klausD

PS. sorry for my bad english

[ March 19, 2003, 14:11: Message edited by: klausD ]